Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, yes. I think for many of the museums from across Canada I've spoken to in the past week, there was a great deal of shock and surprise. There was an expectation that the museums assistance program would not only be kept at the present level, but there were indications it might be increased, because we've talked about the years of underfunding. Without that steady funding in place, major questions are being asked within the museum community, and I think it's incumbent upon us as the heritage committee to have a session set aside to talk about what those cuts will mean on the ground so we're better informed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Would anyone else like to speak on the motion?

Mr. Kotto first.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

I will support this motion because, as I was saying earlier, these organizations are presently suffering the impact of these cuts. However, if you allow me, I will introduce an amendment to this motion. We will also have eventually to invite a museum association from Quebec in this framework. The amendment is to add to the list the Société des musées québécois.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay, there has been an amendment to the motion, put forward by Mr. Kotto, that the association of Quebec museums be added to the list, to make three associations that would come here.

Are there any others?

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it's a very minor thing, which I suspect might even be considered a friendly amendment.

Given that the relationship between our parliamentarians and the government officials is one and that the relationship between parliamentarians and non-government groups is another, might I suggest that instead of requesting, we invite officials from the Canadian Museums Association and the others?

I'm suggesting that we replace “request” with “invite”. I think it's more in keeping with the nature of the relationship we have with non-government agencies and officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Is that friendly amendment okay, Mr. Angus?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm sure they'd be thrilled. If we said we'd ask them to come in bouncing on their heads to talk with us, they would come. So it doesn't really matter to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm wondering if I could add another friendly amendment, that we might be able to invite Museums Alberta to the table as well for that particular meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, if we're looking at two meetings, definitely, but if we're having one meeting, I think there is a reason to have the Quebec museums association, because there are specific issues. The Canadian Museums Association does represent Alberta museums.

If we want to have two or three sessions with museums, we can have them come, but I think at this point, if we're only going to have two hours, it should be the Canadian Museums Associations and the Quebec group, because then we'd have full representation.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The Canadian Museums Association doesn't represent Quebec museums--is that right? You're voting down Alberta?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

No, the way I understand it, if we're going to have two meetings....

Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, certainly, if you are putting everything on the same level, we are all aiming straight for a debate on cultural duality. I do not believe that we are going to engage in this debate here and now. The specificity of Quebec dictates that we should consider this asymmetry. As far as representativeness is concerned, the Canadian Museum Association is a strong representative of what is happening elsewhere. Certainly both associations often work together. However, Quebec's specific issues are peculiar to Quebec. That is the reason why I insisted on adding the Société des musées québécois. I did not intend to challenge Western Canada, it had nothing to do with this. In any case, whether they appear before us or not, the end result will be the same because conclusions will be the same. We would still like to have them come and express personally their concerns about the cuts that the government has just made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Do we want to have two sessions? My first concern is that that doesn't go with the motion. I would think that probably there might be other associations that would like to come too. It's just a suggestion from the chair. If we want to make this into a full debate, then we could end up with more people.

Mr. Angus, you had your hand up first, and then we'll have Mr. Bélanger.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I have been speaking with museum associations from across Canada. I think they'd be very pleased if we had the Canadian Museums Association here. I certainly do not want to use this forum as a bitter-batter to say we're voting down Alberta. I really resent that. I don't want that on the record. I think that if we have one session in which we hear from the museums association, that would allow us to get a general picture. Otherwise, if we are following Mr. Warkentin's suggestion, we'll have to have 10 groups speaking individually, plus others, and that's going to deflect us from our other work. I think we are spending a lot of time spinning our tires around this table. I think it's a fairly straightforward motion, and we should just vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay.

Mr. Bélanger, go ahead, please.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have absolutely no objections to inviting the museums in Alberta as well. You may recall that in June we had, around the table here, probably seven or eight representatives from a number of provinces, and we managed to have a very good meeting in that two-hour period. I think we could have a meeting of similar quality. I'm sure that whoever is invited to discuss the topic would coordinate their presentation and make sure it flowed and that they didn't contradict each other. So I have no problems whatsoever supporting Mr. Warkentin's amendments, because I think museums in Alberta are as worthwhile as museums in Quebec and as those in Ontario and in every province and territory in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Our first bit of business here is to deal with the amendment. There was a friendly amendment, and now we have an amendment put forward by Mr. Warkentin, which reads as follows:

That The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite officials from the Canadian Museums Association, the Heritage Canada Foundation and the Société des musées québecois and the Museum of Alberta to come before the committee in order to speak to the impacts of the cuts on their ability to deliver their services.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

So now we have to vote on the amended motion:

That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage invite officials from the Canadian Museums Association, the Société des musées québecois, the Heritage Canada Foundation and the Museum of Alberta to come before the committee in order to speak on the impacts of the cuts on their ability to deliver their services.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Now we move to the next motion. This is a motion put forward by Mr. Bélanger:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommend that the government continue funding the Court Challenges Program at the fiscal 2005-2006 level and that the Chair report the adoption of this motion to the House forthwith.

Mr. Bélanger, would you like to speak on it?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This motion is quite straightforward. Since the Court Challenges Program of Canada received its funding from the Department of Canadian Heritage, this motion is tabled in this committee and not others. Other committees, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, are quite concerned by the announcement of these cuts and the elimination of this program. Since this program is funded under our department's estimates, the motion is being tabled in this committee. It is quite clear and we may not need to debate it. The positions on both sides are probably quite clear as well on this issue. If you wish to have a debate, we can certainly oblige. I offer my colleagues to avoid such a debate if they see fit. It is up to them to decide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Not to debate, but I want to add a friendly amendment to this, that after we go from fiscal year 2005-06:

that the Chair report the adoption of the motion of this House forthwith and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage call for witnesses to hear from organizations that have utilized the Court Challenges Program.

In the past week I have learned a lot more about this program. I knew very little about it, but I've been talking to a number of the groups that have used this in very key areas where this has played a major difference for the betterment of this country, I believe. Again, it would be incumbent upon us, as the committee that deals with heritage issues, to learn more about what this program does--or did.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It's not a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman. It's not that I'm opposed to what Mr. Angus is trying to achieve, but it is something that a number of committees may actually wish to do, depending on the outcome of this motion. Should this indeed not be carried, I'm sure there would be considerable attempts throughout the entire standing committee structure to invite witnesses to speak to this. We may even want to do that even if we adopt this motion.

I've been following this particular program since its inception, since its first cancellation by a previous Conservative government, and since its reinstatement by the previous government. It is a program that is of immense use to a number of communities in our country, not just in regard to the official languages and status of women, because those are the two principal ones we'll find in this particular department that we're concerned with, but it'll also be applicable to people in HRSDC, certainly in Indian Affairs, Veterans Affairs, Justice, and so forth. If we're going to have to engage in hearing witnesses in order to approve this, fine, but I don't think we need to.

That's why I'm not making it a friendly amendment, Mr. Angus.